AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
663 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello All --


I am a newbie and in a bit of a conundrum. I have read through a number of threads discussing viewing distance and 'rule of thumbs'. Here's the deal: my theater is used for DVD movie watching about 95% of the time and games the other 5%. I don't watch television, ever.


I sit 8 feet from the front of the screen. I like a fairly good size screen for a cinematic, movie-type experience. I originally settled on the 55" Mitsubishi 55413 as it was a) in my price range and b) good for movies. When the delivery guys came today, the size and the shape of the TV simply couldn't make it downstairs into the movie room -- too big by a hair, and we tried for an hour. The 55" really struck me as "perfect," so I'm bummed.


I still want to go with a 413 model, as I can't afford even a small DLP. This leaves the 48" (smaller) or the 65" (comes apart into two pieces) to choose from. I'm concerned that the 48" viewing area will be too small. But 65" is probably too large. After all, 8 feet isn't that far! Does anyone have personal experience with seating like that on a crtRP that's this big?


What are the downside of the larger TV? All 3 of the TVs, 48, 55 and 65 use a 7" gun and a 5-lense setup. Does this mean that the 65 will be effectively less bright? Will it be proportionaltely less clear -- I would assume so -- at the same distance?


I spent time in the store, checking out a comparable TV for about 20 minutes from 8', and it's definitely big, but still significantly less of my vision that a movie screen would.


Opinions:

1) A 65" is something that's worth trying out. Since it's 480p movies all the time, and I want a cinematic experience, it may work out. Plus my salesguy needs to put his kids through college somehow.

2) I'm high as a freakin' kite, it's going to look poor, and I should just save the $$$ and buy the 48". It's plenty large enough.

3) Keep reading the forum, because I'm an ijit and missed the answer somewhere.


Unrelated: will I experience "letterbox" burn in fromy only ever watching movies? In months? Years? Decades? I will turn brightness and contrast both way down.


Thanks,


Sage
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
663 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Hmmm... I must have been incoherent or just overly wordy. Let me try again.


If all I watch is movies, should I: choose a TV with a screen size that is bigger than optimum OR choose a TV with a screen size that is smaller than optimum?


AND


If all I watch is movies (2-3 hours per sitting, 3 - 4 days per week), should I expect to see burn-in in the next month, year, or five years?


Sage
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
A 48" (diagonal measure) wide screen display would be excellent for a viewing distance of 8 feet. The distance-to-picture height ratio works out to 4X. While somewhat shy of the front row cinematic experience, it's still closer than the resolvable detail a DVD provides will support.


There is no reason for image "burn-in" to ever be a concern unless all of the DVD's you watch are formatted for 4x3 displays. The aspect ratios of films for theatrical release are all over the map. Some of your DVD's will be formatted 1.33:1, some 1.66:1, some 1.78:1, some 1.85:1, some 2.35:1, etc. There's no need to turn everything "way down", just back off from the factory default of 100% by roughly half.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
845 Posts
The screen size is up to you, but if you want a smoother picture, get a smaller screen size. A distance of 8' for a 65" is kind of pushing it, but can be done okay if you have it properly set up. Since you will nearly see every pixel, the convergence has to be kept up impeccably, and you will probably have to do a mechanical focus to get it perfect. If it was me, I would do it. Oh yeah, I am doing it (53"

@ 7-8').
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
845 Posts
Burn In-


I have noticed that I seem to watch a lot of 2.35:1 movies (most of the action flicks seem to use this) so you may want to consciously intermix them with 16x9 (1.78:1), if you are only using it for displaying movies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
663 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Thanks for the responses!


Fogey on burn-in: Got it -- since I'm moving from a 4:3 TV, I was thinking that there would always been black bars top and bottom -- but it should basically only be for films with a greater than 1.85 ratio; smaller will put the bars on the side. Duh on me!


Seth: 55" was definitely perfect for what I wanted. I'll let you know what I figure out with the 65" display @ 8'. If it really doesn't look good, I can exchange the TV for a 48-413.


Considering what a piece of crap I'm upgrading from, it's strange that I care this much. ;=) I guess I just want to get it right. I suppose if I really care, I wouldn't let a little thing like sheetrock and a few studs get in my way.


Sage
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
845 Posts
Now your talking. If it's your own home, go for it. So long as you don't have to mess with any of the main structural walls, I would have at it. Some people hold back from their dreams, only to realize that they could have done the complete wall repair, patch and paint for probably under a grand, depending on how much they want to do themselves. That's called custom install. I have to include that in bids all the time, people assume that it's prohibitively expensive when you start talking about construction work, but in these instances it's usually pretty mundane stuff.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,316 Posts
Other considerations, which don't seem to be mentioned often: Do you normally like to sit closer or farther away? For personal preference and/or your actual vision, you may *like* the 65" at 8'. You really have to try the actual set at the actual distance (or be able to return it....).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
324 Posts
I have the 48'413 mits in my living room at 8ft away. It is great for movie watching. It is not too big and definitely not too small.


You could always consider the hitachi 51"S500. It runs about $2100.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
845 Posts
That is still one of the finer points of a CRT, that you just can't pull off as well with most of the FPD's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
707 Posts
Bigger provides a more "immersive" viewing experience. However, smaller will definitely provide a cleaner, better picture with more consistent brightness across the screen and you won't be driving the guns as hard for a given light output.


65 inch sounds awfully big for and 8 foot seating distance. I'd go with the 48, myself. You also might check the dimensions on the Sony and Hitachi 51's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
663 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
So, I watched my first 2 movies last night. 65", 8-feet is... definitely close. I had a fairly different experience with the two movies. I used the AVIA setup disk to get the set basically calibrated.


The first movie that we watched was Superbit 5th Element. It looked stunning! The higher bit rate of the tranfer made a terrific difference, and it was as close to a "movie theater" feeling that I've had in any home (although I know many folks have better, I haven't been invited. :=) ). Colors were brilliant, the picture had depth, and it just looked good.


The second movie was G. I. Jane. I never realized it watching on my old SD 27" 4:3, but it's not a very good transfer! I believe it's not anamorphic and it's got tons of edge enhancement. On the other hand, I really liked the coloration. Most of the colors are dark and dim, or washed out (intentionally), but there are little blobs of color that I never really noticed in SD. Despite being blury, and seeing a very wee-bit of screen-door effect, it was still a better experience. It really made me understand how important a good transfer etc... is.


Net result: 65" is big at 8 feet -- but it doesn't feel TOO big. The downside of the 65" is that clarity and consistency is definitely reduced, but it seems to more limited by transfer than TV. Also, it's definitely noticably dimmer at 'standard' settings then the 55" display that I saw. Ultimately, it really does feel like a movie theater's screen.


Sage
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
845 Posts
One thing I just had to do on my CRT RPTV to sit that close, was a mechanical focus. A properly setup CRT can give a very sharp image, and yet still have a softer film type presentation. Also, you may want to do some cabinet lining and lens striping for even screen distribution. Basically, if you do a full CRT setup and calibration, you can sit that close and be absolutely blown away. I would recommend touching up the convergence quite often as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
663 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
"Also, you may want to do some cabinet lining and lens striping for even screen distribution. "


What does this mean? Is there any detailed info on how to do this?


Sage
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
you may want to think about a tv that will split in to 2 pieces to get it downstairs. I have read many more posts about people wishing they had gone bigger than people wishing they had gone smaller. There have been threads on which tv can be split to get them through tight spots,do a search


Jordan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
845 Posts
The cabinet lining is when you adhere a black fabric to the inside surfaces of the projection cabinet. Since this fabric is much more light absorbing than simply painting it black (some mfgrs don't even do that!), this keeps the internal reflections from meeting the screen, and washing it out.


The lens striping is to address the angle of the outer tubes. They are set in such a way that they want to leak light on to the opposite wall. Lens striping will help mask that light leakage, and help keep the screen image solid from left to right.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top